Is what the US has been doing in Iraq genocide?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=128088

The answer given to this question by Dr. Ian Douglas, who teaches courses on political science at an-Najah International University and is a member of the Brussells Tribunal committee, is an open and clear “Yes.”

The massive tragedy that has been taking place right next to our country since April 2003 is unfortunately not given enough coverage by the Turkish media. The editorial “kitchens” of newspapers and televisions have become so used to the killing of dozens of Iraqis every day by Americans, insurgents or al-Qaeda members that they have ceased to attach any news value to these killings. Although the tragedy that claims lives every day seems to have created a kind of sentimental stupor in the media, this definitely does not mean that the tragedy is no longer there. This bloody tragedy, which we have become so used to, is stripping ourselves of our humanity, and is suffered every single day with all its terror in a country right next to us. Every moment it leaves a woman childless, husbandless, fatherless, brotherless, or leaves a child motherless, brotherless, fatherless, or without a grandfather, uncle or aunt.

Before the very eyes of a numb-hearted world, a country is being pillaged and plundered; a nation is being wiped out step by step. While dozens of people are killed every day, maybe hundreds are forced into leaving their homes, hometowns and homeland.

Dr. Douglas rises against this, articulating that “this is a full-fledged genocide.” He has decided to inform as many people as he can and calls on everyone he reaches to be much more sensitive toward the genocide being perpetrated in Iraq. It is impossible not to see the genuine pain of having witnessed massive destruction in the eyes of this man, who has also visited me to share his views.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Well, some of the neocons wanted us to wipe out most or all young Sunni men--

because they comprised most of the insurgents. I consider that to be genocide. Now we pay them, which is better than killing them (but still not a long-term solution).

[Djinn]

5. no

genocide is a systematic attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The US is not attempting to destroy the Sunni religion.

The goal in Iraq is to fleece the country; keep the oil flowing in US dollars rather than Euro's, open the floodgates for foreign "investment" (what Naomi Klein has termed Disaster Capitalism, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/klein, has been occurring for nearly decades reached it's glorious apex in Iraq) and instill a culture of private mercenary forces as normal.

None of this requires the Sunni religion to be wiped out, not even only in Iraq.

I really don't think it's important though. Is it somehow more noble to slaughter innocent men, women and children because you want to steal from them than it is to do so for some idealogical bigotry?

[TwilightGardener]

20. No, this was from an article I read by Glenn Greenwald in Salon--

he wrote about a neocon policy advisor in the Chimpy administration who had considered, at one point, a concerted effort to wipe out the young Sunni male population as a way to contain the insurgency--my definition of genocide is the systematic extermination of a certain group of people, so this fits, IMO. It wsn't carried out, which is good, but apparently they were tempted. I am almost done with Klein's book, by the way, and I agree with most of it.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Yes.

And the vast majority of the world says "yes".

Illegal invasion.

Torture.

Rape.

Murder.

Genocide.

War crimes.

And this will all "make us safe". :eyes:

[Djinn]

10. no they don't

most of the rest of the world agrees on illegal invasion, torture, rape, murder and war crimes but genocide is a deliberate attempt to wipe out a group of people. There is no need whatsoever to do so in order to meet the aims of the invasion, which have been met by the way, they are simply now being "bedded down".

If words mean anything at all then under no definition I've seen does the occupation of Iraq equal genocide.

The US couldn't give a flying fanny what your ethnicity or religion is, if you allow them to exploit you everything is OK, if you object to this you can expect a very short life span regardless of whether you are a Catholic (see South & Central America) a Buddhist (see Vietnam & Cambodia) or a Muslim.

[seemslikeadream]

3. by design

Genocide by design?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1275903

[MonkeyFunk]

4. No

As awful and stupid as this war is, it's not being waged with the intention of killing all the Iraqis.

[LynnTheDem]

6. "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy,

in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

WHich is why most the world thought US sanctions against Iraqis was genocide.

[EFerrari]

9. And we weren't even trying then.

:sarcasm:

[Djinn]

12. the key word is not "part"

it is INTENT there is no intent to kill all Sunni's, nor even all Sunni's in Iraq.

Isn't illegal invasion, occupation, kidnapping, torture and mass murder for profit abhorrent enough?

[uppityperson]

14. I've gone round with this term too.

"in part" could mean even 1 person, so, according to the liberal interpretation of "in whole or in part", one could take the extreme that anything done on purpose to anyone is genocide. I don't agree with that, am in agreement with you. Just saying been round with people here about the terms.

[Djinn]

18. that term is irrelevant to this discussion

yes "in part" means exactly that you do not have to be 100% succesful, you don't even have to aim to be 100% succesful.

You do have to aim though. There's has to be a specific intent to destroy an ethnicity/religion.

That is simple NOT the intent in Iraq.

[uppityperson]

21. I've gone round with "intent" also and agree.

My opinion is that the intent is to merely subjugate the Iraqis in whole, to control oil. Intent is not to destroy an ethnicity or religion, but to control them. I have had argued back that the intent of subjugating them is what makes it genocide, but I disagree.


It is awful enough without having to try to fit "genocide" on top of it and minimizes genocide when it happens. In my opinion of course.

[EFerrari]

7. Only America could commit careless genocide for Halliburton,

Boeing and DyneCorp and Blackwater. Because we are that special.

[seemslikeadream]

8. John Edwards used the word

John Edwards used the word


http://www.cfr.org/publication/13433 /

Thank you very much for coming to the Council. You’ve laid out a fairly detailed timetable for how you’d like to see the drawdown take place in Iraq and the eventual withdrawal. There’s some skepticism about the ability of the United States to affect things in Iraq once we do withdraw, and the possibility of a genocide is something you’ve made reference to. So, how does that change your figuring on what the United States would have to do if you did get out and then this happened?

First of all, the long-term stability and chance for success in Iraq is dependent on the Iraqi leadership itself. My view is that until and when we shift the responsibility for Iraq to the Sunni and Shia leadership, it's unlikely based on history that they're going to reach any political reconciliation. And so we need to do that in a smart, orderly way by telling them we’re doing it, withdrawing troops over a period of ten to twelve months. We ought to engage in every effort we can to help bring them together, to encourage political compromise, and we ought to engage the Iranians, the Syrians, and other countries in the region into helping stabilize Iraq. The Iranians clearly have an interest in a stable Iraq. They don’t want refugees coming across their border, they don’t want the economic instability, and they don’t want a broader Middle East conflict between Shia and Sunni. The Syrians have a similar interest, although they’re Sunni, not Shia.

And then, the president has a responsibility beyond that. We have interest in the region, that’s obvious, we need to maintain a presence there, in Kuwait, in Afghanistan, maybe in Jordan, depending on what we can agree to there, and we definitely need to maintain a naval presence in the Persian Gulf. And the president has got to prepare for the two things that you raise. One is the possibility that the civil war becomes all-out, so that it can be contained, and the second is the possibility of genocide. My view is that this is something that’s crucial for America to plan for. In the case of the civil war, there are strategies for dealing with it, to contain it—buffer zones, moving away from population centers. And in the case of genocide, this is something we clearly need to be doing with the international community, not America doing this alone. We have to prepare for that. I’m not going to say now this far in advance exactly what the mechanism should be, but America has to have a plan for that.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Genocide does not require the intentional killing of all the Iraqis as you suggest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide


The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines genocide in legal terms, and is the culmination of years of campaigning by lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term by reference to the Simele massacre, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide. All participating countries are advised to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime. The number of states that have ratified the convention is currently 137.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

[MonkeyFunk]

13. again

I don't think there's any intent there.

Please don't make me defend this stupid war - I'm only saying it's not intentional genocide.

[LynnTheDem]

15. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

:hi:

[Djinn]

19. so what on earth

makes you think Iraq isn't about money and power and IS about genocide. You claim this is genocide so how about backing that up instead of asserting it. Keep the definition of the word in mind when you do so.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. so what's your evidence

that it's intentional genocide?

[NNN0LHI]

22. To suggest that what Bush has done in Iraq was not intentional does defend Bush and his war

Shock and Awe was no accident. The 4+ years of continuous brutal occupation that followed is no accident either.

Its genocide.

Don

[uppityperson]

23. Was the intent to terrorize and control things there, to steal and cheat?

Or to kill an ethnic or religious group? What was the intention? Yes, killing and terrorizing them has happened way the f*ing hell too much, but what was the intent, WHY did they do that(kill and terrorize)?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

16. Missing the point

I never once said that genocide required the intentional killing of all the Iraqis. Not once.

What I said is exactly the same as what you just referenced:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There is NO intent to do so. Genocide does not require the attempt to be successful but it does require an attempt.

What makes you think that the US cares at all about the religious, ethnic or national background of those it is killing?

This isn't about anything other than THEFT. The intent here is THEFT and even if the US kills every last human in Iraq unless they do with the intent to wipe out a homogeneous group it isn't genocide.

If they do so for reasons of THEFT (and geopolitical positioning) it is NOT genocide.

Why does it matter? Can we not be repulsed at mass murder for profit?

[NNN0LHI]

24. I was responding to post # 4 not yours

I never suggested that you said that genocide required the intentional killing of all the Iraqis.

Must have been some confusion.

Don

[Djinn]

26. sorry

wrong post, still doesn't change anything. You managed to get an irrelevant "gotcha" but didn't seem to read the substance of that post.

If you can be bothered to read anything, please read this question and answer:

what makes you think Iraq isn't about money and power and IS about genocide. You claim this is genocide so how about backing that up instead of asserting it. Keep the definition of the word in mind when you do so.

[NNN0LHI]

31. I am having a difficult time figuring out what question you want me to read and answer

Is your question mark key broken?

And whats with the "wrong post, still doesn't change anything" stuff now?

Changes everything.

Get some rest.

Don

[Djinn]

34. Seriously dude can you read

The question is right there in the post, plain as the nose on your face, here it is again:

what makes you think Iraq isn't about money and power and IS about genocide. You claim this is genocide so how about backing that up instead of asserting it. Keep the definition of the word in mind when you do so.

Other people get it, as they've asked you the same question you've studiously ignored

The sorry was politely acknowledging MY error, any chance you could do the same without wisecracks about getting rest (daytime down my way)

[uppityperson]

17. So if I cause serious harm to one member of a group ("in part"), is this genocide?

If I steal 1 child and take it to another group, is this genocide?

[NNN0LHI]

28. If you stole one child and a group of your friends each stole a child from another group then yes

You and the members of your group would be held liable for being involved in genocide. Thats the way I read it.

Now if you just went out on your own volition and steal someones child that would make you a kidnapper.

Don

[Djinn]

29. Only if the intention of the kidnapping

was to harm/attempt to destroy the group. If the intent was peadophilia it would not be genocide even if you took every child.

You really aren't getting the INTENT thing are you? It's critical to the definition.

[uppityperson]

38. What if my intent was to take this child and raise it as my own?

My INTENT was not to destroy a group but to raise him/her. INTENT is the big issue here.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. It does not have to be waged with the intention of killing ALL...

...the Iraqis to meet the requirements for genocide:

From Wiki:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

[Wizard777]

41. Actually it doesn't have to be "all." The legal definition is to destroy in whole or in part.

With the charge of Genocide you do not have to suceed. There is no charge of attempted Genocide. To attempt Genocide is Genocide. Our actions in Iraq fit the legal definition of Genocide. Even our allies have leveled the charge. At some point you have to quit accepting OPPS as an excuse. Genocide is definately that point.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. Most definitely yes, one need only read the accounts of Falluja..

Here's a soldier's account of it:

http://ftssoldier.blogspot.com/2004/11/holiday-in-falluja_19.html

And the genocide began in the first Gulf War:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2irN1G5HiRo

Wiki's treatment of genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Oh, it's genocide alright -- the highest order of war crimes.

[Djinn]

35. was the intent of slaughtering all those people

the eradication (or even attempted eradication) of (a) SUNNI's or (b) the resistance. If you believe the answer is A then you've completely misunderstood US foreign policy since the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine. If you answered B then it is not genocide.

The attacks on 9/11 were repulsive, illegal, vile acts of mass slaughter against innocent unarmed civilians.

The attacks on Fallujah were repulsive, illegal, vile acts of mass slaughter against innocent unarmed civilians.

NEITHER WERE GENOCIDE

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. See post 32 -- your denial is just silly...

...the requirement for genocide has been met.

You sound like the guy who takes something that doesn't belong to him without asking or notifying the owner, never returns it, eventually gets caught red-handed with it, at which time he gives it back claiming that he only borrowed it and intended to return it all along. In my book, and I think most courts would agree, these facts add up to theft, prima facie.

Likewise, the facts surrounding the longstanding UN sanctions since Gulf War I, and subsequent illegal bombings, invasion, and occupation of Iraq add up to genocide, prima facie.

[earth mom]

33. Yes.

And anyone who defends it or tries to explain it away has blood on their hands.

[Djinn]

36. pointing out that it does not meet

the definition of genocide is not defending it or explaining it, much like pointing out it doesn't fit the definition of a chair does.

It is illegal and wrong and mass murder for profit that doesn't make it genocide.

As an anarchist who is anti-Imperialism and murder for profit whether Bush does it or a Dem admin does (as they have countless times and will continue to do) - hilarious to be accused of defending Bush. :eyes:

[Karenina]

39. Parse words to your heart's content.

The RESULT of the *MIC's adventure in Iraq is G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E.

[madokie]

40. sounds like it to me

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=genocide

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

[bdamomma]

42. Yes. to answer your question

[pleah]

43. I believe it is, YES!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

44. Hey

what's all the fuss?

We've done it before?

It's as American as....

Conquest.

K&R